In what is likely his final address to the United Nations General Assembly, President Obama (shown at UN) offered Tuesday what called as the “broad strokes” of a “course correction” necessary to achieve “global integration.”
In order to “to carry this progress forward,” the president said that he is “convinced that in the long run, giving up some freedom of action … binding ourselves to international rules over the long term — enhances our security.”
Next, although not mentioning Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump by name, Obama warned of the dangers of pursuing an Americanist agenda. Speaking of the need for “global integration,” Obama warned that “aggressive nationalism” and “a crude populism” — a vision promoted by the “far right” — fails to embrace “our common humanity.”
“Today, a nation ringed by walls would only imprison itself,” the president added, in case it wasn’t crystal clear whose proposals he was attacking.
It wasn’t enough for the sitting president to take shots at the GOP presidential hopeful, however. He took on the market economy too. Sounding like a full-throated unabashed Marxist, Obama explained that when it comes to bridging the gap between rich and poor, Obama said we could not rely on “soulless capitalism,” but would need to increase the ability of government to respond to the demands for benefits.
Governments will achieve this new paradigm of economic leveling, Obama said, by “respecting the rights of workers” and guaranteeing that workers “can organize into independent unions and earn a living wage.” He then crowed that during his administration, the United States has “worked with many nations to curb the excesses of capitalism.”
Workers of the world, unite and take over!
In what amounts to a shot of top-shelf irony, Obama — a man who has declared that he “cannot wait” for Congress to act, so he has taken the power unto himself to rule autocratically with his phone and pen — said history teaches that “strongmen are then left with two paths: permanent crackdown, which sparks strife at home, or scapegoating enemies abroad, which can lead to war.”
Strife at home. Sound familiar?
Scapegoating enemies abroad. Sound familiar?
War. Sound familiar?
All of these consequences of rule by a “strongman” are every day more evident in the United States under the presidency of Barack Obama.
Although not mentioning Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton by name, Obama described recent events in Ukraine that sound suspiciously like the government of the United States while Hillary Clinton was serving as secretary of state, selling access to the highest offices of American political power for “donations” to the Clinton Foundation.
“After all, the people of Ukraine did not take to the streets because of some plot imposed from abroad. They took to the streets because their leadership was for sale and they had no recourse,” Obama explained.
Next, taking shots at American society and belief in individual liberty, Obama said that he understands that “a traditional society may value unity and cohesion more than a diverse country like my own.”
In fact, President Obama is so devoted to progress and globalism that he suggested that the United States must abandon, among other things, “any forms of fundamentalism” that “makes [sic] our traditional identities irreconcilable with modernity.”
Obama then turned to one of his favorite pastimes: defending Islam:
It’s a truism that global integration has led to a collision of cultures; trade, migration, the Internet, all these things can challenge and unsettle our most cherished identities. We see liberal societies express opposition when women choose to cover themselves. We see protests responding to Western newspaper cartoons that caricature the Prophet Muhammad.
Notice that those acts listed as among “our most cherished identities” are the covering of women as mandated for Muslims and the “protests” against “western newspapers” who dare draw pictures of “the Prophet Muhammad.”
So, in America, Christians should be forced to violate their own religious tenets and pay for abortions, allow “transgenders” in bathrooms, support gay “marriage,” and suppress their religious restrictions against the advocacy of such things, but when Muslims murder journalists for drawing a cartoon, “we must respect the meaning that people draw from their own traditions — from their religion.”
Remarkably, President Obama admits, perhaps unwittingly, that his program of forced acceptance of relocated “refugees” in the states in the United States will only lead to strife. “And if we are honest, we understand that no external power is going to be able to force different religious communities or ethnic communities to co-exist for long,” he said. Why, then, is he so doggedly pursuing the policy of settling thousands of Syrian refugees in American communities fearful of the affect such a forced integration will have on their neighborhoods?
One need only look to the case of Twin Falls, Idaho, to understand the legitimacy of the concern of Americans suddenly surrounded by those from “different religious communities or ethnic communities.”
As reported by Breitbart News:
One result of the “new American community” that Limón and her local allies created in Twin Falls is the tension and conflict between foreign migrants and Americans, which is exemplified by the five-year-old girl who was sexually assaulted in an incident involving three refugee boys, age seven to fourteen, this past June.
Tensions in Twin Falls, as in many targeted refugee resettlement communities around the country, are not limited to classroom problems, reduced wages or common criminality.
As Breitbart News reported previously, the Idaho Department of Welfare and Health has confirmed that seven recently resettled refugees have been diagnosed with active tuberculosis in the state between 2011 and 2015.
At least one resettled refugee in Idaho posed a national security risk. Fazliddin Kurbanov, a resettled refugee from Uzebek, was convicted of three terrorism-related charges in 2015. Charges included providing material support to a U.S. designated terrorist organization and planning an attack in the U.S.
Finally, at the end of his extended criticism of his own country, Obama returned to his opening thesis: America must relinquish some of its liberty in order to achieve global integration. “And we can only realize the promise of this institution’s [the United Nations'] founding … if powerful nations like my own accept constraints.”
American liberty, says the American president, must be sacrificed on the altar of accomplishing the UN’s goal of one-world government.